My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
05/25/1982 Minutes
Document-Host
>
City North Olmsted
>
Boards and Commissions
>
1982
>
1982 Planning Commission
>
05/25/1982 Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/4/2019 12:34:39 PM
Creation date
1/30/2019 7:13:49 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
N Olmsted Boards & Commissions
Year
1982
Board Name
Planning Commission
Document Name
Minutes
Date
5/25/1982
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
7
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
? . <br />PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 25, 1982 PAGE 6 <br />the adjacent houses and (3) safety in general. Chairman <br />Gorris stated that in view of the Legal Opinion and the de- <br />cision of the Board of Zoning Appeals, the responsibility of <br />the Planning Commission is to decide if this is the best <br />layout for this use for both the West Haven Foundation and <br />for the adjacent home owners. Neighbors, Mr. & Mrs. Steer <br />and Mr. & Mrs. Szarka,requested that the fence be extended <br />back 500' to the commercial line and objected to the garage <br />addition which is to be built to the front of the eastern <br />house, claiming it will block the sunshine and fresh air. <br />Mr. Archer stated that the garage had to be large enough to <br />hold the van, and that the garage would also help block the <br />view from,the adjacent property. Mr. Gorris and Mr. Morgan <br />had visited the West Haven home in Westlake, and there was <br />no fence between the properties. The neighbor that they <br />checked with stated that the residents were good neighbors. <br />Councilman Woerple stated that he was not satisfied with the <br />Law Department opinion. He stated that.the Board of Zoning <br />Appeals must have compared this proposal as a like and similar <br />use to another specific permitted use, and what are the side- <br />yards and set back of that use, and should not those sideyards <br />and set backs apply to this proposal. Assistant Law Director <br />Dubelko stated that the Board of Zoning Appeals decision was <br />upheld by Council and that the Board of Zoning Appeals had <br />not compared it specifically to one use in its motion. The <br />neighbors were advised to resubmit their petition to their <br />Councilman. J. Burns mov.ed to accept the.revised West <br />Haven plans as submitted which incorporate the changes rec-. <br />ommended by the Architectural Board of Review regarding fen- <br />cing, relocation of the additions, and relocation of the <br />windows, with the recommendation that the solid wood fencing <br />be extended to a total of 300' on both sides, and the pro- <br />posal is to be referred directly to the Building, Zoning, <br />and.Development Committee of Councii,.seconded by R. Perla, <br />and unanimously approved. . <br />IV. NEW DEVELOPMENTS AND SUBDIVISIONS: <br />No Items <br />V. COMMLTNICATIONS: <br />No Items <br />VI. NEW BUSINESS: <br />The f irst meeting in June will be held on Thrusday, June 10, if <br />there is no conflict with other meetings-in the City Hall.
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.